“You forgot estate agents Jonty!”

“Planners probably like teachers, nurses, MPs, police get a real slating in the press. Generally if you liaise with them throughout the pre-planning phase most things can be ironed out. Golden Valley Paddocks do not appear to have done this. Had they been open and honest about their intentions I am sure the outcome would have been different. Ignoring conflict leads to an escalation. Chickens/Alpacas/Property development/profit versus good neigbourliness and social responsibility.”

“Kirsten: In all my years on this planet I don't think I have encountered a council, both elected members and officers that treat their residents with such pompous disdain.

Off topic I know, but I have just been going through the B&NES publication "A Review of Secondary Schools in Bath". You may be aware that the Sword of Damocles is hanging over the head of one of three schools and has been for at least three years.

Pages 16 and 17 of the document lays out the time table of events leading to the decision. Four public consultation meetings ending tomorrow night with Friday being the last day for comments. On Wednesday 21st July the cabinet meets to make their decision on which school to close.

This is the statement in the document for their meeting on the 21st July:

"Cabinet decision on WHETHER to publish proposals"

How bl00dy dare they consider keeping their decision from us for another six months? What about the uncertainty of parents and teachers? I'm just lost for expletives for this bunch of incompetent.............”

“In view of the fact that, despite over 60 objections, a planning officer has nodded though the planning application for the station under delegated powers, you may well feel that some planning officers need lessons in what local democracy is about. There is no doubt that, given the objections and given the doubts that I know the council itself has about this scheme, it is an absolute disgrace that this did not go to committee. Why didn't the Abbey ward councillors demand that it did? If this had been Ms KT Elliott with a plan with that number of objections, you can be quite sure my local councillors would have done - and rightly so. Why so silent, Cllrs Webber and Gazzard? Is it because the applicants were FGW, Network Rail, Multi development and Aviva? Does that make a difference? I think the people of Bath have a right to know.”

“Long may the cull at Trym house be soon.
I know from experience how three planning officers can have three different views.
So what have we done we have sold up because the costs were escalating because of the planners.”

“Oh what an ideal situation Mike from Oldfield Park describes - it would be marvellous if it could or would take place.

However, many planning applications require both sides of the "argument" to be open to suggestions as to whether a different way of doing the proposed development is possible. I can personally vouch for a local development at the back of where I live that was "amended" by lowering the height of the roof of the development that gave several objections their aims. That did however require an open mind from the developer.

From what I've seen here and elsewhere, Golden Valley Paddocks still think that they are doing nothing wrong and seem hell bent on getting their own way. When that stubborness occurs a strong lead from the local authority is required - sadly in this case it has taken highly visible publicity for BANES to finally get some kind of act together.

Sadly the people responsible for planning application consideration are not democratically elected and therefore they cannot be directly held to account by being just employees of the council rather than elected councillors- I think that needs to change.

It's apparent to me at least that BANES have badly let their residents down on this issue by being frankly too soft and failing to enforce their own application refusals adequately and timely. Therefore the negative publicity they and GVP have received is well deserved !!”

“When I put in a query about a neighbour extending his boundary into the communal service lane, the council couldn't / wouldn't help because they said the lane wasn't a public right of way. Four years later when I wanted to build a garage, they told me I needed planning permission because the garage would front the same lane which now of course was suddenly a public right of way!”

“Sadly Kirsten the planning system, particularly as interpreted here in Bath, isn't just a mass of complicated passageways. If it were, one hopes we could find our way eventually to the satisfactory and logical conclusion to a planning issue. From mine and many others experiences, it seems to depend upon the particular interpretation placed upon an application by a planning officer, even to the point where two officers could have equal and opposite views. In some instances it would seem decisions are influenced by which side of the bed the acting officer got out of.

Town and Country Planning in my opinion is a parasitic profession riding on the backs of true creative and risk taking activities, and has since its inception gradually and successfully positioned itself as a non questionable, non answerable, non proactive controller of all matters of development.

As you rightly say, the more clout, the less hassle!”

“I am also a regular Joe, I live my life and to be honest I have not got a clue about how the planning process works. But, by judging by all the comments on this thread and indeed others it appears to be a totally flawed and unfair process.
Am I being too sensible or would it not be better to have an independent, non-profit making panel to decide these issues? Cause at the moment it just seems like you have the law abiding general public who just want to make their houses better to live in, a Negative council that only want your money and then say 'No', and finally you have your big companies that think they can threaten and bribe their way through any predicament. Why can't you get sensible people that can work together, and rather than just say 'No' how about coming up with solutions to sort everyone¿s needs i.e sorry Mr Chicken Shed builder we can't grant you permission to build here for X and Y reason, however we have found this land just around the corner that won't effect any other residents and you will be able to erect the same building! Or sorry Mr Nice resident but due to regulations we can't approve the extension to your house, however if you reduce the size of your outbuildings to X size you will then full within the limit to build your extension! Ooooooh what a lovely world we could live in! ONE DAY”

“The point Dave Larkhall and I were making is that I'm afraid if you're an ordinary Joe, like us, the council won't hesitate to apply the rules - which is fine until they start making the rules more labyrinthine than seems necessary. But if you're a big company who might take legal action, they will take a much less rigorous line. Public inquiries and even planning appeals cost money and if the council loses, then the council has to shell out.

The people of Woolley are ordinary Joes - Golden Paddocks is a big company. Get the picture? These dual standards are simply the council taking what it sees as a pragmatic view. But it doesn't make it right. The law is the law, and should be applied equally to everyone.”